luckychucky
msg:117353 | 12:21 pm on Jun 30, 2004 (gmt 0) |
what's an insterstitial?
|
mud
msg:117354 | 8:42 pm on Jun 30, 2004 (gmt 0) |
It's a full-page ad which is displayed between pages, when a user clicks on a link. They are provided by FastClick.
|
mud
msg:117355 | 8:43 pm on Jun 30, 2004 (gmt 0) |
<snip> --- here is an example, they use this. [edited by: Brett_Tabke at 1:07 pm (utc) on July 3, 2004]
[edit reason] no urls please - review the charter and tos please [/edit]
|
trimmer80
msg:117356 | 8:52 pm on Jun 30, 2004 (gmt 0) |
i have been toying with this concept as well.
The main problem is the negative effect on PR distribution and taking longer for your site to get indexed by the bot.
I would be interested if anyone uses them in a way that does not effect PR or the bot. (except for cloaking that is)
|
mud
msg:117357 | 9:28 pm on Jun 30, 2004 (gmt 0) |
Does google condone cloaking in cases such as these?
|
trimmer80
msg:117358 | 2:46 am on Jul 1, 2004 (gmt 0) |
| Does google condone cloaking in cases such as these? |
|
My answer is No! Cloaking is not acceptable when the surf is served a different page / content to the search engine.
|
celenoid
msg:117359 | 6:13 am on Jul 1, 2004 (gmt 0) |
..but when the only thing that is cloaked is the outgoing link destination, the user will certainly see what the bot sees when they click on a SERP... These random ads are nonsense to bots -- surely you should avoid feeding them these links!
|
TheDave
msg:117360 | 6:15 am on Jul 1, 2004 (gmt 0) |
How about you avoid feeding them to the humans too? ;)
|
Teknorat
msg:117361 | 7:03 am on Jul 1, 2004 (gmt 0) |
I don't use any sites that contain Fastclick's male bovine faequal matter. I think you have to draw the line somewhere when it comes to ads interfering with the users experience and Fastclick et al cross it. Not to mention their cookies. IMO Google should penalise (a bit) sites that use interstitials. This will probably get deleted for being off topic and rant like but you really should think about this long and hard before you implement it. (I'm talking about a site wide thing.)
|
trimmer80
msg:117362 | 8:58 pm on Jul 1, 2004 (gmt 0) |
| IMO Google should penalise (a bit) sites that use interstitials |
|
Not sure how you can justify this. Many sites out there provide alot of free information / services... the surfers exposure to these ads are the only costs. I don't see anything wrong with using them. However interstitials do divid your pr. if you interstital page has a PR of 4 then that 4 is divided across the advert link and the link to your next page. | ..but when the only thing that is cloaked is the outgoing link destination, the user will certainly see what the bot sees when they click on a SERP... |
|
but the users 'experience' differs from the bots.
The bot thinks that your site is more "user friendly" than it actually is.
|
celenoid
msg:117363 | 11:40 pm on Jul 1, 2004 (gmt 0) |
| The bot thinks that your site is more "user friendly" than it actually is. |
|
Seems like a golden opportunity to improve your UI to me. You have to ask yourself - for what reason does it appear your website was made? To share valuable information? or to exploit your users? If the bots don't penalise this type of activity, surely your users will!
|
trimmer80
msg:117364 | 2:16 am on Jul 2, 2004 (gmt 0) |
Webmasters live in the real world.
Webmasters have to feed their children As a surfer i am willing to click through an advertisement for the promise of free information on the next page. As long as the content you are offering is valuable enough to the surf, there will be no problem.
|
hurlimann
msg:117365 | 2:35 am on Jul 2, 2004 (gmt 0) |
trimmer80 in my experience most webmasters not live in the real world.
|
|
